Ohio lawmakers enter debate on science curriculum (creationism)

would you like to continue discussion on talk.origins? I'm sure they'd love your company.

'It makes sense when you have competing theories and you're talking about education that students be given an opportunity to study them all.'

So true. And when the Christian creation myth becomes a competing theory, it should be taught right alongside evolution. Until such time, it should be ignored by science.

Meanwhile, I wonder how many churches would agree to put biology texts with explanations of evolution in them next to their Bibles.

'What God wants, God gets, God help us all.'

Well, of course, churches aren't paid for by tax money. But I suppose anyone who reads this group would agree that not only is creationism not a theory, but that anyone who refers to it as such hasn't the faintest conception of what a scientific theory is. Could say he wouldn't know a theory if it bit him in the ass, but I'm afraid he might infer a theory is some sort of beast. Cheers John GW (Rather a purist for correct usage when it comes to referring to ideas, suggestions, hypotheses, and theories.)

Fair enough; that's a valid point.

Most 'mainline' churches are all for biology and evolution, as long as there is a 'creator' somewhere in the loop. (Beginning, inserting soul in man and so forth.) Since science cannot 'prove' that such did not happen

Yes Fred, I hear you. But I don't see any real relationship between science and faith-based-supernatural based religions. Anyone can accept one or both, but the rules of science are very different than the rules of faith. Right now I'm playing in the Science toolbox and the concerns of a bunch of God-fearing amateurs are irrelevant as long as they don't try to lynch me. OTOH when is the last time that scientists burned a religious person at the stake because they didn't believe in the electron? The Ohio dimwits, if successful, will only accelerate the move of the middle class to private schools. Only the poor will be sentenced to learn medievalism at the public trough.

Interesting concept, since the private schools affordable to the middle classes in my part of the country are church-based ones

refiguring some math

I agree with almost all of that. But the Christian creation myth is not science and it has no business in a science class. It would be great for some other subject, but it's just not science.

I did not say that the Christian creation myth was science. You are right, it isn't. However, to ignore its existence, and still present an accurate account of the historical development of evolutionary concepts (in a science class) would be rough indeed. Any account of the development of modern geology or biology has to take into account the beliefs of those people before and at the times of James Hutton, Charles Darwin and so forth, and the difficulties the new sciences ran into as they moved from being the realm of naturalists to quanititative science, running into flack from established society. One might assume ( wrongly) that all Christians share the same creation myth (Just pick any two dissimilar sects, and you will get dissimilar answers). One surely cannot assume that people from some other religious background would even understand what the evolution brouhaha is about without a concept of what the Christians are kicking about, and how difficult this has made the advance of certain aspects of geologic time, plate tectonics and evolutionary theory itself. I would be against the teaching of 'creation science' as a separate course, which might elevate it to inappropriate veracity. But teaching it in a neutral context, in a science class, where historically appropriate and as the cultural background of the times, wouldn't bother me at all.

Science may try to be as objective as it can, but it doesn't happen in a vacuum.

best regards to all, and my last word, Jo

I know.

snip

OK, fair enough, I can agree with that completely.